Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 1073

So if congress passes the Patriot Act that makes the Executive's actions 'legal', you would still label the Executive as a Fuhrer for executing the laws that Congress passed?

If those laws conflict with the Constitution, which the President is sworn to defend against internal enemies, then yes. No question about it. None of the three branches of government operate within the limits of the Constitution, which makes our government illegitimate.

Comment Re:Good ... (Score 1) 1073

What specific rights are you implying 'Fuhrer Obama' took away from you?

The right to be secure in my person, house, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. That's just one of many.

I'm also curious how he did so, being in the Executive, rather than the Legislative branch.

The executive branch is the only branch that can actually violate rights, because it's the branch that actually does things. Whether Congress approves or not is irrelevant, the 4th amendment is clear, generalized surveillance is illegal.

Comment Re:Why does the cynic in me. . . (Score 1) 116

Rights in Europe most definitely are based on current law AKA what the relevant government currently says you have

That's the same thing as saying you have no rights. If you only have the rights that the government says you do, it is impossible for the government to violate your rights. We all know this to be false, because oppressive governments exist.

Either rights exist, and they exist independently of the government, or they do not exist at all. The position Europe is trying to stake out is completely nonsensical.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

When you have 2 parties in power on and off over a long period and there are a small number of central issues then both parties will converge on an acceptable middle position.

Except that they haven't converged on an acceptable middle position. They have converged on barbaric policies that only benefit the rich and powerful.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

Tea partiers have been allowed to win because the policies they support will make the rich and powerful even more rich and more powerful. When an actual opposition movement arises (e.g. Occupy) there is violent retaliation from the authorities.

Comment Re:Since when (Score 1) 295

The problem isn't partisanship. The problem is that the worst abuses have bi-partisan support.

e.g. When was the last time John Boehner, Peter King, or Lindsey Graham supported an Obama policy? Before the NSA wiretapping became public, I can't remember a single instance.

e.g. Law and order conservatives could easily attack Obama for failing to enforce the law against bankers. But they choose not to attack this weakness, while making much, much stupider attacks. Why? Because they're all on the same payroll.

e.g. Obamacare was right out of the Heritage Foundation. While the right made a good show of oppositition, they knew they had won from the start. Nobody on either side of the aisle gave a moments thought to single payer, a.k.a. the way every civilized country manages health care.

e.g. The War on Drug Users. This is quite simply an atrocity that no honest, well meaning person can support. And yet no one on either side of the aisle has done anything to deescalate. Obama has sent more caregivers to prison than Bush did.

And so on, and so on. On every single important issue that faces America, there is broad bipartisan support for the worst possible policy.

Comment Re:Why does the cynic in me. . . (Score 3, Interesting) 116

Europe has it all backwards. And it's made obvious by statements like this:

He went on to explain that based on current laws citizens do not have a right to be removed from search indexes

Rights are not based on current law. They exist independently of law (or not at all, that's a valid argument too), and current law either respects or violates that right. If someone were to say "based on current law citizens do not have the right to choose their own religion", it would be abundantly clear that "current law" is oppressive.

Either the right to be forgotten exists or it does not. I'd suggest it does not, because it clearly conflicts with my own right to remember, and communicate.

Slashdot Top Deals

A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on. -- Samuel Goldwyn